首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry >KOMET: An unblinded, randomised, two parallelgroup, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extended-release sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy
【24h】

KOMET: An unblinded, randomised, two parallelgroup, stratified trial comparing the effectiveness of levetiracetam with controlled-release carbamazepine and extended-release sodium valproate as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy

机译:KOMET:一项无盲,随机,两组平行分组的分层试验,比较了左乙拉西坦与控释卡马西平和缓释丙戊酸钠在新诊断的癫痫患者中的单药治疗效果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective To compare the effectiveness of levetiracetam (LEV) with extended-release sodium valproate (VPA-ER) and controlled-release carbamazepine (CBZ-CR) as monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. Methods This unblinded, randomised, 52-week superiority trial (NCT00175903) recruited patients (≥16 years of age) with ≥2 unprovoked seizures in the previous 2 years and ≥1 in the previous 6 months. The physician chose VPA or CBZ as preferred standard treatment; each patient was randomised to standard treatment or LEV. The primary outcome was time to treatment withdrawal (LEV vs standard antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)). Analyses also compared LEV with VPAER, and LEV with CBZ-CR. Findings 1688 patients (mean age 41 years; 44% female) were randomised to LEV (n=841) or standard AEDs (n=847). Time to treatment withdrawal was not significantly different between LEV and standard AEDs: HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.74 to 1.08). Time to treatment withdrawal (HR (95% CI)) was 1.02 (0.74 to 1.41) for LEV/VPA-ER and 0.84 (0.66 to 1.07) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Time to first seizure (HR, 95% CI) was significantly longer for standard AEDs, 1.20 (1.03 to 1.39), being 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for LEV/VPA-ER and 1.20 (0.99 to 1.46) for LEV/CBZ-CR. Estimated 12-month seizure freedom rates from randomisation: 58.7% LEV versus 64.5% VPA-ER; 50.5% LEV versus 56.7% CBZ-CR. Similar proportions of patients within each stratum reported at least one adverse event: 66.1% LEV versus 62.0% VPA-ER; 73.4% LEV versus 72.5% CBZ-CR. Conclusions LEV monotherapy was not superior to standard AEDs for the global outcome, namely time to treatment withdrawal, in patients with newly diagnosed focal or generalised seizures.
机译:目的比较左乙拉西坦(LEV),丙戊酸钠缓释片(VPA-ER)和卡马西平控释片(CBZ-CR)在新诊断的癫痫患者中的单药治疗效果。方法这项无盲,随机,为期52周的优势试验(NCT00175903)招募了前2年≥2次,前6个月≥1次的≥16岁年龄≥16岁的患者。医师选择VPA或CBZ作为首选标准治疗方法;每位患者随机接受标准治疗或LEV治疗。主要结局是停药时间(LEV与标准抗癫痫药(AED)对比)。分析还比较了LEV和VPAER,LEV和CBZ-CR。研究结果1688例患者(平均年龄41岁;女性占44%)被随机分为LEV组(n = 841)或标准AED组(n = 847)。 LEV和标准AED之间的停药时间没有显着差异:HR(95%CI)0.90(0.74至1.08)。对于LEV / VPA-ER,停药时间(HR(95%CI))为1.02(0.74至1.41),对于LEV / CBZ-CR为0.84(0.66至1.07)。标准AED的首次发作时间(HR,95%CI)明显更长,LEV / VPA-ER为1.20(1.03至1.39),LEV / CBZ-为1.20(0.93至1.54)。 CR。随机估计的12个月癫痫发作自由率:LEV为58.7%,VPA-ER为64.5%; LEV为50.5%,而CBZ-CR为56.7%。每个阶层中相似比例的患者报告至少发生了一种不良事件:LEV为66.1%,VPA-ER为62.0%; LEV为73.4%,而CBZ-CR为72.5%。结论对于新诊断为局灶性或全身性癫痫发作的患者,LEV单一疗法的总体疗效(即停药时间)不优于标准AED。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号